The Saudi taʿawuni insurance model, despite claiming to be compatible with Islamic transactional rules, in fact violates the prohibition of gharar (risk) through its commercial structure. The study investigates the ways in which gharar (risk) is accommodated in modern insurance models. It argues that the most appropriate solution to comply with the doctrine of gharar, is to de-commercialize the taʿawuni model by adopting the mutual insurance model, which is capable of satisfying the requirements of sharia relating to the prohibition of trading in gharar

The first official Islamic bank was established in 1975. The characteristic of an Islamic bank is that the bank is based on an interest free system. The interest free system is a requirement for an Islamic bank. The Islamic bank system is based on Sharia laws which are laws that are followed by Muslims and it is based on the text from the Quran. The Islamic Banks had a rapid expansion between 1993 and 2003, the expansion was about 23 percent and since 2003 have the expansion been about 20 percent. Today are there more than 300 Islamic bank offices in approximately 75 countries with a total asset about 250 billion dollars. The recent expansion of those Islamic banks has made it interesting for us to study the internationalization process for these banks. The purpose of the survey is to reconnoiter the factors that escalate internationalization process of Islamic banks. The survey approach is qualitative method by interviews. The interviews were reciprocated by five bank officers from five different Islamic banks. Three of the bank officers responded the questions by mail, while two of the bank officers responded the interview by telephone. The study shows that Islamic banks have serious opportunities for internationalization. A number of elements accelerate the internationalization process of Islamic banks. The elements that accelerate the internationalization process of Islamic banks are networks, knowledge, diversity, history, population.

Syftet med föreliggande uppsats är att studera tre svenska imamers syn på hur sharia ska förstås, tolkas och tillämpas i Sverige. Vi utgår från aktuell forskning och litteratur i ämnet. I uppsatsens teoretiska bakgrund presenteras begreppet sharia som muslimsk lag, levnadsregler och personlig moral. Förhållandet mellan sharia och nationell lagstiftning diskuteras med hjälp av exempel från olika länder. Dessutom beskrivs förhållandet mellan sharia och den svenska lagstiftningen. Empirin i uppsatsen består av kvalitativa intervjuer med tre svenska imamer. De tre imamerna är överens om att sharia är viktigt eftersom det styr människans handlingar, som i sin tur påverkar livet efter döden. Sharia ska enligt respondenterna förstås som en oföränderlig lag med gudomligt ursprung. De är dock överens om att sharia måste tolkas, både av den enskilda muslimen och av religiöst lärda. Vidare menar alla imamerna att sharia ska tillämpas på ett sådant sätt att föreskrifterna till viss del anpassas till det land man bor i. Imamerna anser att sharia i stor utsträckning går att förena med svensk lagstiftning, även om det finns enstaka områden där sharia kolliderar med svensk lag. En slutsats är att samtliga respondenter kan sägas förespråka en modernistisk tolkning av sharia där den gudomliga lagen ligger till grund för en lagstiftning som samtidigt anpassas efter var man befinner sig. Imamerna menar också att sharia i sin helhet endast kan införas i ett perfekt muslimskt samhälle.

The Saudi taʿawuni insurance model, despite claiming to be compatible with Islamic transactional rules, in fact violates the prohibition of gharar (risk) through its commercial structure. The study investigates the ways in which gharar (risk) is accommodated in modern insurance models. It argues that the most appropriate solution to comply with the doctrine of gharar, is to de-commercialize the taʿawuni model by adopting the mutual insurance model, which is capable of satisfying the requirements of sharia relating to the prohibition of trading in gharar

This thesis offers an interpretation of the Qatar-based Egyptian Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi's contribution to "tajdid al-fiqh," the "renewal" of the Islamic fiqh tradition. In the wake of the transformations wrought on the fiqh tradition during the colonial period, it is the "modern project" (to borrow Talal Asad's term) for tajdid al-fiqh instigated by Muhammad 'Abduh and Rashid Rida that this thesis uses to enter the discussion. Al-Qaradawi lays claim to their legacy, and this thesis is particularly concerned with the engagement between himself and his interlocutors in the unusual context of Qatar. These "translocal" networks facilitate al-Qaradawi's involvement in debates in other contexts in the region, particularly in Egypt and the wider Arabian Peninsula. Each of this thesis's thematic chapters will make a different case for understanding al-Qaradawi's borrowing, reconstructing, reviving or transforming certain concepts and ideas. In so doing it will show that al-Qaradawi, as representative of the contemporary ʿulamaʾ as a whole, is not part of a scholar-class that have been either marginalized or entirely co-optated by the state. Instead, they are a group of scholars that have utilized new media technologies and other supportive networks to continually promote themselves in the Arab public sphere, as they sought to adapt their tradition to the Middle East region's new context, debates and conditions.

Based on observational fieldwork and interviews carried out in Boston in ten Islamic community centers and mosques, supplemented by archival research in Suffolk County court records and surveys of relevant literature, this ethnography investigates how various communities and sects of Sunni Muslims in the Boston area utilize and conceptualize Islamic law. The presence and operation of Islamic law in the US (as well as in Europe) has increasingly become a center of interest and conflict. Some commentators have portrayed the operation of Sharia in non-majority Islamic countries as a victory for cultural pluralism and for an open, even expanding, global community. Others see Sharia as a threat to basic and ancient lifeways that have traditionally been characterized by the predominance of “Judeo-Christian” religion. This ethnography seeks to move beyond these poles to examine what role Islamic law actually plays in the lives and religion of a cross-section of American Muslims. Through a combination of interviews, the examination of legal records and local government activities, such as courts and public hearings I use the microcosm of the Islamic community in Boston to understand how American disestablishmentarianism, or the American relation between the church and the state, creates an environment that allows Muslims to seek and gain public recognition and accommodation for their faith. Moreover, I examine how these laws allow Boston’s Muslims, and in turn the Muslims of the United States at large, to build lives that are distinctly Islamic while simultaneously incorporating themselves within the larger American cultural milieu, which has historically been characterized by primarily Christian and less prominently Jewish religious cultural practice. The thesis also examines the role Islamic law plays in building both accommodations and distinctions between the Islamic community and its American neighbors. It analyzes which aspects of the Sharia various communities of Muslims consider most important and how they reconcile differences and conflicts between aspects of American culture and law that present obstacles to realizing the ideal Islamic life according to Sharia. Far from a draconian code that demands complete obedience, the data shows that Sharia is actually a flexible tool that makes accommodation possible. At the same time, the discourse and praxis of Sharia also divides American Muslims along lines that often have nothing to do with the law per se but rather reflect the basic tensions and divisions of American society at large. In particular, it considers the differences between African-American Muslim communities and Muslims originated from the Middle East and elsewhere.

In the Middle East and North Africa region, many family laws are based on Sharia principles, where different interpretations of Sharia result in varying implications for human rights. This study explores the impact of divorce regulations in the personal status laws of Iraq and Tunisia on women’s rights. While Tunisia stands out for its extensive legal rights for women, surpassing its regional counterparts, Iraq falls behind in advancing women’s rights - particularly in family law. Despite experiencing similar political changes, women in Iraq and Tunisia face different situations and opportunities in terms of accessing divorce. Using a comparative case study methodology, this study examines the expression of divorce laws in Iraq and Tunisia, as well as their intersection with Sharia. The study incorporates a content analysis of relevant laws, along with a review of secondary data on the countries’ history to examine the role of women in shaping these laws. Drawing on feminist theories by Amina Wadud and Kecia Ali, the study highlights the role of patriarchy and male-dominated interpretations of Islam in restricting women’s empowerment. The findings reveal that women’s rights are shaped by social and cultural structures, rather than solely by Islamic principles. Both countries incorporate Sharia in their laws, although Tunisia interprets it more favourably for women, Iraq adopts a more conservative and restrictive interpretation. Tunisia’s successful alignment of Sharia with women’s rights demonstrates the adaptability of Islamic law and the importance of contextual interpretations of Sharia. Internal and external factors, including diverse populations, different Islamic schools of law, and grassroot movements, contribute to different approaches to democratic transition and varying situations for women in Iraq and Tunisia in terms of human rights.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is a major landmark in the development of international accountability. Its preamble affirms “that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation”. Thus the signatory states were “determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes”. The ICC contributes to the fight against impunity and the establishment of the rule of law by punishing violations of international legal norms. Accountability is important for the past and the future of societies. The ICC needs the support and cooperation of the states to effectively perform its mandate. So without ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute the ICC will not have jurisdiction over non-member states, unless referred by the UN Security Council. The Rome Statute does not only create the ICC but it also creates the national jurisdiction of its States Parties as these states have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute Rome Statute crimes. With only five Arab states to date being State Parties to the Rome Statute, it is obvious that the region is underrepresented at the ICC. Despite their positive role played in the creation of the ICC, not ratifying the Rome Statute raises several questions, especially that the majority of states that voted against the Statute were from the Arab region. Ratifying and implementing the Rome Statute will strengthen the Arab states criminal justice system, enabling them to prosecute international crimes domestically and will deter any individual from committing them in the future, regardless his official position. It will also allow the Arab states to have the primary jurisdiction over international crimes and reinforces the entire judicial system. This research will examine the issue of ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute by the Arab states by analysing the reasons, challenges and obstacles of the Arab states for not becoming part of the international criminal justice system.

Den islamiska rätten vilar på fyra rättskällor. Koranen, som enligt muslimsk uppfattning anses vara Guds bokstavliga och perfekt bevarade Tal är den högsta rättskällan. Koranen tolkas främst med hjälp av en språklig analys av relevanta verser tillsammans med de omständigheter som antas ha framkallat vissa verser. Därefter kommer profeten Muhammeds sunna som utgörs av hans gärning i tal och ageranden. Profetens sunna är bevarad i formen av hadither i diverse hadithsammanställningar. En hadith är i princip en rapport om en historisk händelse, men som vanligtvis relaterar till profetens sunna. Inom den islamiska rättstraditionen har en hel vetenskap utvecklats i syfte att identifiera och särskilja autentiska hadither ifrån fabricerade. Profetens sunna anses bära legislativ vikt och förklara hur koranens påbud och etik ska efterlevas i praktiken. Den tredje rättskällan utgörs av principen om ijma’ (konsensus). När det muslimska samfundet av rättslärda är helt eniga i en fråga om tolkningen av koranen och profetens sunna så anses deras konsensus bära en legislativ tyngd. Den fjärde rättskällan är qiyas (analogislut). Analogislut beskrivs som arketypen för all rättslig argumentation. Det avgörande vid tillämpningen av analogislut är identifierandet av en ratio legis. Ibland omnämns ratio legis explicit i en rättskälla och ibland är den endast implicerad. När ratio legis endast är implicerad så måste den verifieras som en legitim ratio legis eftersom alla ratio legis är ej legitima. Denna verifiering sker med hjälp av maqasid ash-shari’a (shari’ans ändamål). Shari’a anses ämna säkerställa fem övergripande ändamål som är bevarandet av tro, liv, avkomma, förnuft och förmögenhet. Dessa ändamål säkerställer mänskliga intressen nödvändiga för balans och harmoni, både i det världsliga livet som på domedagen. När ratio legis överensstämmer med dessa fem ändamål, så anses den vara legitim. Inom shari’a finns även ett antal olika rättsaktörer där den viktigaste är en mujtahid. En mujtahid är en kvalificerad jurist som kan utföra ijtihad och finna svaret på rättsliga frågor som ej besvaras uttryckligen i rättskällorna. I den islamiska rättstraditionen finns även rättsskolor. Det kännetecknande för rättsskolorna är juristernas enande kring en samling rättsliga principer. Det finns fyra rättsskolor i den islamiska rättstraditionen, den hanafitiska, den shafi’itiska, den hanbalitiska och den malikitiska.

Den som säger sig tillhöra en viss religion kan i praktiken vara mer eller mindre troende, eller inte troende alls. Det kan handla om att man firar vissa högtider men utan att särskilt bry sig om deras religiösa innebörd, eller att man ibland deltar i gudstjänster och ber någon gång i månaden, eller ett liv iständig hågkomst av Guds närvaro. Spektrat av religiositet för en person kan vara allt från att religionen endast har kulturell betydelse till att man lever sitt liv helt enligt dess påbud, såväl som att man anser att religion är en privatsak till att man arbetar för att samhället skall formas enligt religionen. Vad gäller islam i Sverige har de muslimska samfundens organisation och aktiviteter beskrivits i ganska stor detalj. Däremot finns inte mycket kunskap om de värderingar de står för. Och vad gäller värderingar och övertygelser hos muslimer i allmänhet finns nästan ingenting skrivet. Denna uppsatstar fasta på den kunskapsbristen. Genom en enkätbaserad attitydundersökning av explorativ karaktär med muslimska SFI-elever somrespondenter har följande frågor undersökts: - Är fundamentalism ett utbrett fenomen inom denna grupp? - I hur stor utsträckning anser man att shari’a bör gälla för muslimer i Sverige och vad är attityden tilldemokrati? - Hur ser relationen mellan religion och moral ut och hur uppfattas det svenska samhället i dettasammanhang? Undersökningens resultat är överlag i samstämmighet med tidigare undersökningar med liknande teman. Respondenterna har en överväldigande positiv attityd till demokrati och en stor del anser också att yttrandefrihet är bra. Samtidigt tycks många mena att islam är undantaget yttrandefriheten ochatt islamiska regler är viktigare än svensk lag. Stödet för shari’a är också påtagligt. En stor majoritet menar att gudstro är nödvändig för att vara en moralisk person och anser samtidigt att Sverige är ett moraliskt land. På grund av urvalsmetoden och den stora andel som avstått från att delta i undersökningen kan resultatet inte generaliseras utanför gruppen av respondenter.